High hospital research participation and improved colorectal cancer survival outcomes: a population-based study

Amy Downing, Eva Ja Morris, Neil Corrigan, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul J Finan, James D Thomas, Michael Chapman, Russell Hamilton, Helen Campbell, David Cameron, Richard Kaplan, Mahesh Parmar, Richard Stephens, Matt Seymour, Walter Gregory, Peter Selby, Amy Downing, Eva Ja Morris, Neil Corrigan, David Sebag-Montefiore, Paul J Finan, James D Thomas, Michael Chapman, Russell Hamilton, Helen Campbell, David Cameron, Richard Kaplan, Mahesh Parmar, Richard Stephens, Matt Seymour, Walter Gregory, Peter Selby

Abstract

Objective: In 2001, the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was established, leading to a rapid increase in clinical research activity across the English NHS. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) as an example, we test the hypothesis that high, sustained hospital-level participation in interventional clinical trials improves outcomes for all patients with CRC managed in those research-intensive hospitals.

Design: Data for patients diagnosed with CRC in England in 2001-2008 (n=209 968) were linked with data on accrual to NCRN CRC studies (n=30 998). Hospital Trusts were categorised by the proportion of patients accrued to interventional studies annually. Multivariable models investigated the relationship between 30-day postoperative mortality and 5-year survival and the level and duration of study participation.

Results: Most of the Trusts achieving high participation were district general hospitals and the effects were not limited to cancer 'centres of excellence', although such centres do make substantial contributions. Patients treated in Trusts with high research participation (≥16%) in their year of diagnosis had lower postoperative mortality (p<0.001) and improved survival (p<0.001) after adjustment for casemix and hospital-level variables. The effects increased with sustained research participation, with a reduction in postoperative mortality of 1.5% (6.5%-5%, p<2.2×10-6) and an improvement in survival (p<10-19; 5-year difference: 3.8% (41.0%-44.8%)) comparing high participation for ≥4 years with 0 years.

Conclusions: There is a strong independent association between survival and participation in interventional clinical studies for all patients with CRC treated in the hospital study participants. Improvement precedes and increases with the level and years of sustained participation.

Keywords: CLINICAL TRIALS; COLORECTAL CANCER; HEALTH SERVICE RESEARCH.

Conflict of interest statement

RK has received research funding from Bayer, Astra Zeneca and Glaxo Smith Kline (paid to the University of Leeds) and has been paid for a consulting or advisory role by Celldex Therapeutics. MS has received research funding from IntegraGen (paid to the University of Leeds). WG has been paid for a consulting or advisory role by Celgene and honoraria by Celgene.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trust average research participation rates (the numbers of patients enrolled in interventional colorectal cancer (CRC) trials divided by total number of new patients with CRC) over the whole 8-year period expressed as percentages by Trust.
Figure 2
Figure 2
HR and p value plots showing the effect of an increasing sustained rate of Trust-level research participation in CRC studies on 5-year survival. Cox multivariable analysis was performed using the explanatory variables listed in the text. The additional variable was a composite score derived from the number of years for which the research participation rate met and exceeded the % cut-off, giving the number of years the rate of participation was sustained above the percentage shown. The HR shown is for each year where the rate was sustained above that percentage. The associated p value is also shown, plotted on a log scale. (A) Includes adjustment for Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC) status while (B) excludes adjustment for ECMC status. Where 3% of patients participate in clinical trials there is a significant (p11) and then a slower increase to a peak or peaks between 16% and about 30%. After this the p value decreases, as the number of Trusts achieving such high levels of research participation becomes smaller. The same pattern is seen for both analyses (with and without ECMC status).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Adjusted survival curves for patients treated in institutions with high research participation. It shows the cumulative survival for patients treated in institutions that have ≥16% participation in interventional clinical trials for 0, 3 or ≥4 years. At the scale of this graph the results for 1 and 2 years are superimposable over that for 0 years. The curves are highly significantly different and show that the separation occurs principally in the first year of follow-up. Survival is adjusted for primary procedure, index admission, Dukes’ stage, age, deprivation and Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre status.

References

    1. Selby P, Kaplan R, Cameron D, et al. . Clinical research networks and the benefits of intensive healthcare systems. Clin Med 2012;12:446–52. 10.7861/clinmedicine.12-5-446
    1. Selby P, Autier P. The impact of the process of clinical research on health service outcomes. Ann Oncol 2011;22(Suppl 7):vii5–9. 10.1093/annonc/mdr419
    1. Braunholtz D, Edwards S, Lilford R. Are randomized clinical trials good for us (in the short term)? Evidence for a ‘trial effect’. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:217–24. 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00305-X
    1. Peppercorn JM, Weeks JC, Cook EF, et al. . Comparison of outcomes in cancer patients treated within and outside clinical trials: conceptual framework and structured review. Lancet 2004;363:263–70. 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15383-4
    1. Vist GE, Bryant D, Somerville L, et al. . Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;(3):MR000009 10.1002/14651858.MR000009.pub4
    1. Clarke M, Loudon K. Effects on patients of their healthcare practitioner's or institution's participation in clinical trials: a systematic review. Trials 2011;12:16 10.1186/1745-6215-12-16
    1. Boaz A, Hanney S, Jones T, et al. . Does the engagement of clinicians and organisations in research improve healthcare performance: a three-stage review. BMJ Open 2015;5:e009415 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009415
    1. Harding K, Lynch L, Porter J, et al. . Organisational benefits of a strong research culture in a health service: a systematic review. Aust Health Rev 2016.
    1. Ozdemir BA, Karthikesalingam A, Sinha S, et al. . Research activity and the association with mortality. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0118253 10.1371/journal.pone.0118253
    1. Majumdar S, Roe M, Peterson E, et al. . Better outcomes for patients treated at hospitals that participate in clinical trials. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:657–62. 10.1001/archinternmed.2007.124
    1. Du Bois A, Rochon J, Lamparter C, et al. . for the AGO Organokommission OVAR. Pattern of care and impact of participation in clinical studies on the outcome in ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2005;15:183–91. 10.1111/j.1525-1438.2005.15202.x
    1. Rochon J, du Bois A. Clinical research in epithelial ovarian cancer and patients’ outcome. Ann Oncol 2011;22:vii 16–19. 10.1093/annonc/mdr421
    1. Stead M, Cameron D, Lester N, et al. . Strengthening clinical cancer research in the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer 2011;104:1529–34. 10.1038/bjc.2011.69
    1. Cameron D, Stead M, Lester N, et al. . Research-intensive cancer care in the NHS in the UK. Ann Oncol 2011;22(Suppl 7):vii29–35. 10.1093/annonc/mdr423
    1. National Cancer Intelligence Network. National Cancer Data Repository 2014.
    1. Morris EJ, Taylor EF, Thomas JD, et al. . Thirty-day postoperative mortality after colorectal cancer surgery in England. Gut 2011;60:806–13. 10.1136/gut.2010.232181
    1. Morris EJ, Whitehouse LE, Farrell T, et al. . A retrospective observational study examining the characteristics and outcomes of tumours diagnosed within and without of the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Brit J Cancer 2012;107:757–64. 10.1038/bjc.2012.331
    1. McPhail S, Elliss-Brookes L, Shelton J, et al. . Emergency presentation of cancer and short-term mortality. Br J Cancer 2013;109:2027–34. 10.1038/bjc.2013.569
    1. Morris EJ, Jordan C, Thomas JD, et al. . Comparison of treatment and outcome information between a clinical trial and the National Cancer Data Repository. Br J Surg 2011;98:299–307. 10.1002/bjs.7295
    1. World Health Organisation. ICD10 international statistical classification of disease and related health problems. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 2004.
    1. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The English Indices of Deprivation 2004: Summary (revised) London, 2005.
    1. NHS Connecting for Health. OPCS Classification of Interventions and Procedures Version 4.5. The Stationery Office, 2009.
    1. Elliss-Brookes L, McPhail S, Ives A, et al. . Routes to diagnosis for cancer—determining the patient journey using multiple routine data sets. Br J Cancer 2012;107:1220–6. 10.1038/bjc.2012.408
    1. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme 2013.
    1. Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre initiative. ECMC: Bringing scientists, clinicians and patients together to develop new cancer therapies 2013.
    1. National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. Which studies are eligible for inclusion? 2013.
    1. Gregory WM. Adjusting survival curves for imbalances in prognostic factors. Br J Cancer 1988;58:202–4. 10.1038/bjc.1988.193
    1. Viprey VF, Gregory WM, Corrias MV, et al. . Neuroblastoma mRNAs predict outcome in children with stage 4 neuroblastoma: a European HR-NBL1/SIOPEN Study. J Clin Onc 2014;32:1074–83. 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.3604
    1. Sterne JA, White IR, Carlin JB, et al. . Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009;338:b2393 10.1136/bmj.b2393
    1. Krzyzanowska MK, Kaplan R, Sullivan R. How may clinical research improve healthcare outcomes? Ann Oncol 2011;22(Suppl 7):vii10–15. 10.1093/annonc/mdr420
    1. Lee SJ, Earle CC, Weeks JC. Outcomes research in oncology: history, conceptual framework, and trends in the literature. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:195–204. 10.1093/jnci/92.3.195
    1. Verdecchia A, Francisci S, Brenner H, et al. . Recent cancer survival in Europe: a 2000-2002 period analysis of EUROCARE-4 data. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:784–96. 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70246-2
    1. Walters S, Benitez-Majano S, Muller P, et al. . Is England closing the international gap in cancer survival? Br J Cancer 2015;113:848–60. 10.1038/bjc.2015.265
    1. Hanney S, Boaz A, Jones T, et al. . Engagement in research: an innovative three-stage review of the benefits for health-care performance. Health Serv Deliv Res 2013;1:1–151. 10.3310/hsdr01080

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren